See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/354557511

Testing of an infrared-based SACLOS guidance in a subsonic wind tunnel

Conference Paper in AIP Conference Proceedings · September 2021

DOI: 10.1063/5.0060368

CITATION READS
1 558

4 authors:

Larasmoyo Nugroho Mohammed al-fadli

Indonesian National Institute of Aeronautics and Space Leeds Beckett University
19 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rika Andiarti Sastra Kusuma Wijaya

BRIN University of Indonesia
20 PUBLICATIONS 59 CITATIONS 105 PUBLICATIONS 430 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Larasmoyo Nugroho on 22 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Testing of an Infrared-based SACLOS Guidance
in a Subsonic Wind Tunnel
Larasmoyo Nugroho,1,a) M. Hanifuddin Al-Fadli,2,b)
Rika Andiarti,1,c) and Sastra Kusuma Wijaya3,d)
1
Rocket Technology Center, National Institute of Aeronautics and Space (LAPAN), Bogor, Indonesia.
2
Indonesia Defense University (UNHAN), Bogor, West Java, Indonesia.
3
Universitas Indonesia, Physics Department, Depok, West Java, Indonesia.
a)
Corresponding author: larasmoyo.nugroho@lapan.go.id
b)
hanifudinmuhammad@yahoo.co.id
c)
rika.andiarti@lapan.go.id
d)
skwijaya@sci.ui.ac.id

Abstract. Anti-tank guided missiles generally have short to medium travel range, therefore it is suitable to use CLOS
(command line-of-sight) as a way to guide them, due to its cost-efficient architecture configuration. To design, develop,
and validate this SACLOS (semi-automatic command line of sight) guidance technology, a Hardware-in-the-Loop (HWIL)
simulation, and function testing was conducted in an open subsonic wind tunnel environment. The algorithm and hardware
architecture are to be tested non-destructively steering the missile against a 20 m/s air velocity. The mission is to follow
the rule-based SACLOS desired command exerted to the missile, and the experiments confirm this accomplishment.

INTRODUCTION
Hardware-in-the-Loop or HWIL simulation plays a crucial position in a product design, development,
modification, and testing cycle process. It is proven to reduce cost and increase the maturity of many sophisticated
weapons and industrial systems in a shorter times.1
Reaping the nascent of computing power, HWIL simulations become more accessible for all complexity level
cases using a board equipped with consumer-grade microprocessors.
Anti-tank guided missiles had many types of guidance and control methods:
Manual Command Line of Sight (MCLOS), Semi-Automatic Command Line of Sight (SACLOS), Fire and Forget
(Lock On Before Launch), and Fire and Update (Lock On After Launch).2 From their specific advantages and
disadvantages, SACLOS guidance employs a unique way to control the missile by using lights/flare attached to it then
tracked by a sensor system placed at the operator side, therefore in line with lowering cost paradigm, without
sacrificing accuracy.
SACLOS guidance system design takes benefit from HWIL technology’s repeatability to non-destructive and non-
hazardous prototype testing, verification, and validation.
The main objective of this paper is to report the realization and testing of a SACLOS guidance design of an anti-
tank guided missile (ATGM) by implementing it to an HWIL structure system constructed inside of an open subsonic
wind tunnel. This realization is pursued to facilitate the development, modification, and testing of an ATGM model.
In Section 2, an anti-tank missile mathematical model coupled with the SACLOS guidance model is explained.
Section 3, details the hardware and software architecture of the SACLOS guidance. Some simulations conducted in
the wind tunnel are highlighted in Section 4. Section 5 covers the conclusions.

METHODOLOGY
SACLOS guidance as an approach to control anti-tank missiles from short to mid-range distance is operated with
the human eye to track targets. The camera must be aimed to follow the target. The task of the operator is to keep the
tracking telescope pointing to the target establishing a direct line-of-sight (LOS) between the launcher apparatus and
the ground target. In the SACLOS guidance method, shown in Fig. 1, the autopilot controls the missile to follow the
LOS course by attempting to remain in the line connecting the target to the controller’s position.

FIGURE 1. Generic command to line of sight (CLOS) guidance.

Figure 1 illustrates the realization of the generic CLOS concept. When the missile is launched, the tracker detects
the flare on the back of the missile and record any deviation from the LOS point which is placed at the center of the
camera, and the error will be computed for correction command to be sent back to the missile. The corrections needed
to get the missile to impact the target area based on the characteristics of the flight combined with the guiding rule.
As part of the anti-jamming effort, the radiance of the flare on the back of the missile is coded in unique frequency.
SACLOS is more automated than MCLOS which demands a lot of operator skill. On the other hand, the SACLOS
missile tracker could be distracted by decoys that mimic the flare behavior of the back of the missile.3

FIGURE 2. SACLOS system general arrangement.

In the SACLOS system (Fig. 2) the telescopic tracker has assisted with an infrared (IR) tracker which is collimated
to it. Under the guidance of the operator’s sight which always zeroed the target, the launcher’s guidance computer
produces pitch/yaw signals proportional to the missile’s deviation from the optical LOS, which in turn the flight
computer system generates acceleration commands. These commands after transformed to the body axis coordinate
the control fins.2 Roll attitude is corrected onboard.

Mathematical Model
The six degrees of freedom (6-DOF) mathematical model of the ATGM is derived from a flying ‘rigid body’
dynamics.
 FIGURE 3. Three-dimension spatial geometry of SACLOS engagement.

As shown in Figure 3, the 3-D firing situation is portrayed. The ground tracker is set as the origin of the inertial
frame. The z-axis is perpendicular to the Earth's surface, while the x-y plane is tangential to it. The missile center is
fixed as the origin of the missile body frame with the x-m axis along the missile centerline.
A full 6-DOF flight simulator is utilized to illustrate the flight trajectory of the missile and its way to the target’s
position. The simulation scheme can be disassembled into the following major parts: aerodynamics of the missile,
thrust, force-moments, missile-target geometry, guidance, and control. With assumptions that the angle-of-attack is
neglected and mass is constant, the force and moment equations of the system can be written as follows:
d
¦ F dt mv (1)
dH
¦M dt
(2)
4
or elaborated in six equations of freedom:
Fx m(u  wq  vr ) (3)
Fy m(v  ur  wp ) (4)
Fz w  vp  uq)
m(w uq (5)
Mx pI xx  ( I zz  I yy )qr  (r  pq) I xz  I yz (q 2  r 2 )  I xy (q  rp ) (6)
(7)
My qI yy  ( I xx  I zz ) pr  ( p 2  r 2 ) I xz  I yz (rr  pq )  I xy (p  qr)
(8)
Mz rI zz  ( I yy  I xx ) pq  ( p  qr ) I xz  I yz (q
(q  rp )  I xy ( p 2  q 2 )
The output velocity is applied to the aerodynamic module, which calculates the aerodynamic forces and moments.
The thrust module computes the thrust force components along the missile axes according. The deflection angles are
generated by the autopilot module. The solution of the missile dynamical equations of motion is carried out
numerically in the vehicle dynamics module where the Blade-Element Theory method is employed4. The outputs of
the vehicle (missile) dynamics module are the missile linear and angular acceleration components obtained in the body
coordinate system. Through the direct-cosine matrix, the missile velocity and turn rates expressed in the earth
coordinate system are obtained. Integrating these velocities yields the missile instantaneous position.
Total forces involved are the aerodynamic forces, thrust force, and gravity force.
Fx mg sin T  FAx  FPx (9)
Fy mg cos T sin I  FAy  FPy (10)
Fz mg cos T cos I  FAz  FPz (11)
 Moment’s sources also come from three forms: aerodynamics, propulsion, and inertial.
(9)
Mx L A  LP
(10)
My M A  MP
Mz N A  NP
(11)

Propulsion moments are significant to be neglected, especially when the thrust doesn’t pass the missile’s C.G (e.g.
doesn’t coincide with missile longitudinal axis).
Besides the six dynamic equations that detail the forces and moments, kinematic equations are needed to correlate
the relationship between the angular and translational rates.
The angular rates from Euler angle rates and body-fixed frame angular rates are governed by these expressions.
(12)
p I \ sin T
(13)
q T cos I \ cos T sin I
(14)
r \ cos T cos I  T sin I
or, in inverted form, body-fixed frame angular rates are expressed into Euler angle rates.
(15)
I i I tan T  r cos I tan T
p  q si
sin
(16)
T q cos I  r sin I
(17)
\ (q sin I  r cos I ) sec T

The translational kinematics equations relate a missile’s velocities U, V, W into the missile’s position in terms of
x, y, h.
x u cos T cos\  v(sin I sin T cos\  cos I sin\ )  w(cos I sin T cos\  sin I sin\ ) (18)
(19)
y u cos T sin\  v(sin I sin T sin\  cos I cos\ )  w(cos I sin T sin\  sin I cos\ )
(20)
z u sin T  v sin I sin T  w cos I cos T
The relationships between velocity components and the incidences angles are:
D tan 1 ( w / u ) (21)
E tan 1 (v / u ) (22)

where:
m Mass
u , v, w velocity
q Dynamic pressure
d Body diameter
S Cross-section area
I Moment of inertia
lo Static margin or Distance between cp and cg
lt Tail arm or distance between tail and cg
CNa Aerodynamic derivative, normal force per unit of the angle of attack
CNd Aerodynamic derivative, normal force per unit of the angle of elevator deflection
Cmq Aerodynamic derivative, pitch moment per unit of pitch rate
Cma Aerodynamic derivative, pitch moment per unit of the angle of attack
Fx, Fy, Fz Aerodynamic Forces
T Thrust
H Angular momentum
L, M, N Aerodynamic moment
lw Moment arm of the wing
L, M, N Aerodynamic moment
L, M, N Aerodynamic moment
L, M, N Aerodynamic moment
 Linearized Pitch Dynamics
In order to design and analyze the autopilot module, the mathematical model must be linearized for extracting the
necessary airframe transfer function or state-space models that can be used for constructing guidance and control
equations.6 Few assumptions must be taken to linearize the problem: motion is planar, velocity is constant, small
incidence angles (α, β), and zero thrust misalignment. The obtained linearized equations describing dynamics of the
guided-missile c.g motion, rotation around c.g. and geometrical relations can be summarized as follows:
qqS d2 (23)
T (lwCND D  lt CNG  CmqT )
I 2u
J
qS
(CND D  CNG G )
(24)
mu (25)
D T J
The transfer function between the velocity vector rotation rate and elevator angle becomes

J
k0
(1  W 1s)(1  W 2 s) (26)
G 1  2] 0 s / Z0  s 2 / Z 2
With the following values of gain k0, eigenfrequency w0, and damping ζ0.

k0 
qSCNG lt  lw (27)
mu lw
l0 qSCND
Z0
I (28)
]0 ( 
2
1 l d Cmq qSCND
) )
(29)
2u m 2CND Il0

Equations (1)-(11) details the dynamics of the 6-DOF model, Eqs. (12)–(22) represents the rotational and
translational kinematics model. Eqs. (23)–(25) are the linearized form of previous equations in the pitch plane.

ARCHITECTURE OF THE SACLOS GUIDANCE SYSTEM

The principle of any command to line-of-sight (CLOS) guidance7 is to make the missile fly as near as possible
along the instantaneous line joining the tracker and the target called the line-of-sight. The specialty of the Semi-
Automatic Command Line of Sight (SACLOS) guidance system is to manually guide the LOS to the desired target,
but automatically steer the missile in pitch and yaw planes so that the missile collimates with it. The target and the
missile are simultaneously tracked by the ground tracking system, which measures the angular difference between the
missile and the LOS. The angular differences are fed into the guidance computer positioned near the firing unit at the
control site, generates steering commands then relayed to the in-flight missile. The data fed to the missile through
wireless link took the form of position (x, y) and size of flare (w, h). These demands are programmed so that, initially
they consist of step demand, which causes the missile to fly directly upward gaining height and longer flight time, and
then broadcast demand command which holds the missile’s attitude to follow a flight path parallel with the sightline.8
 FIGURE 4. Algorithm of guidance command construction and control command construction.

Equations (1) and (2) are defined in the missile’s axis system. For a complete mathematical model of the SACLOS
guidance system, it is necessary to add equations of the SACLOS guidance law and command forming units, rotating
missile control and actuator dynamics as well as the kinematics relations.
Any LOS-based guidance law could be implemented straightforwardly using a PID controller scheme, but also
possible to be developed further incorporating more complex approaches such as Inverse Dynamics, Neural Network,9
etc.
The SACLOS algorithm developed for missile guidance relied on the interaction of two-dimensional earth-
referenced angles, namely elevation, and azimuth.

§ z (z t ) · (30)
J m (J t ) tan 1 ¨  ¸
© x( xt ) ¹
§ y(y t ) ·
V m (V t ) tan 1 ¨ 
(31)
¸
© x( xt ) ¹
R Vt (32)

During the midcourse phase of missile flight, the target and missile velocities and position are fed to the guidance
computer in a polar coordinate system: R (range), γ (elevation), σ (azimuth). The information provided to the guidance
computer is the position vector of the target [Rt, γ t, σ t] and the missile [Rm, γ m, σ m] as well as the rates [ܴ௧ሶ ǡ ɀ௧ሶ ǡ ɐሶ ௧ ].
The missile range rate ܴ௠ሶ ǡ is also measured. The line-of-sight rate is measured for PN guidance. The guidance
objective is to minimize the miss distance for both maneuvering and non-maneuvering targets. The guidance computer
receives this information from the tracking system and then issues a command to the firing unit to set the launch
angle.10
The guidance module generates guidance commands after some initial command which is applied to the missile
autopilot directly after launch. The purpose of delaying the execution of the main commands is to reach a certain ideal
flight condition before applying the guidance commands.
 FIGURE 5. Illustration of the deviation error components in the pitch plane for command guidance.

The guidance command produced in Fig. 5: desired elevation and azimuth which are derived from the displacement
or deviation of the missile to the LOS. The azimuth plane is defined as the XY-plane and the elevation plane is defined
as the XZ-plane. ܴ is the missile range and ܴt is the range of the approaching target. ‫ܦ‬ϵ is the displacement from the
launch site to the target and ߣϵ is the lateral displacement from the desired course or the cross-range error. Their
relationships are given by Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively
DH Rm (T D  Tt ) (33)
OH  DH Rm (T m  Tt ) (34)
Subtracting Eqs. (34) to (33) gives the missile’s lateral error from the desired course.
OH Rm (T m  T t )  R m (T D  T t ) (35)
The missile and target range must be the same when time-to-go is zero to ensure interception. This is true only if
T D Tt  Tt t go (36)
§ Rt  Rm · § Rt  Rm · (37)
T D  T t Tt ¨ ¸ , t go
g ¨ ¸
© Rm  Rt ¹ © Rm  Rt ¹
Substituting these values in Eq. (35) gives a generic equation of lateral displacement from the desired course in rad
m.
R  Rm (38)
O R (T  T )  K R T t
H m m t G m t
Rm  Rt
where ‫ ܩܭ‬is the proportionality constant used to tune the command guidance system. Similarly, it can be shown that
the lateral error for the azimuth plane is given by Eq. (38)
OA Rm (\ m \ t ) cos T t  K G R m \ t t go cos Tt (39)

Guidance Command Construction

The LOS angular errors for the two planes are expressed in pixels. The command section implements the SACLOS
guidance law and it can be characterized as a dynamic correction function in the closed-loop of the guidance process
which provides shaping of the commands to control the guided missile. The method of control is based on the
estimation of the lateral displacement of the missile from the target LOS.

FIGURE 6. Error computing between missile position and target position.

 The process of modulation and demodulation of the IR signal of the missile’s flare as well as synchronous detection
can be carried out digitally. This is one important aspect of the SACLOS system upgrade. By application of the HWIL
simulation, the new digital solution can be tested and verified with a real electro-optical system included in the closed
guidance loop. Furthermore, since the described type of missile localization system is sensitive to certain types of IR
jamming,11 new advanced signal processing methods can be applied and tested in order to increase the IR jamming
margin. The research and development in this field would be practically impossible to carry out without extensive use
of the HIL simulation technology.
Between the SACLOS guidance system’s main blocks, ground controller, and missile flight control system,
transmitter uplink signals from ground to the missile, while the IR LEDs diffuse light from the tail to IR cameras.

FIGURE 7. Closed-loop SACLOS guidance and control system.

The performance of CLOS guidance is known to be typically good for short-range engagements. For medium and
long-range engagements the performance is limited by the tracker at the control site. The missile acceleration
capability is strongly reliant on the guidance law used.12 In command to line-of-sight guidance, normal and lateral
acceleration commands are relayed to the in-flight missile to make the displacement of the missile from the direct
line-of-sight to the target as small as possible, in elevation (pitch) and azimuth (yaw) planes. For low-speed targets,
the performance of CLOS is known to be good.7 But upon increasing the target velocity, the demanded acceleration
increases as a result of increasing the curvature of the missile trajectory.

FIGURE 9. The imagery of (a) visual telescopic camera,

(b) 1x, (c) 8x, (d) 16x zoom IR-based sensor tracker.

The maximum detection of the OV5647 camera to the infrared LED circuit is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1. Maximum detection test of OV5647 camera.
No OV5647 Camera zoom - Range (m)
1 1x 85.71
2 8x 435.11
3 16x 997.16
 FPS or frames per second is the number of images processed in one second. The method to calculate FPS speeds
is to count the number of images processed by Raspberry Pi divided by time in units of seconds. The maximum image
update speed of the Raspberry Pi + OV5647 camera with 1x zoom is 90.01, 8x zoom is 90.16, and 16x zoom is 90.16.

RESULTS OF GUIDANCE TESTS IN WIND TUNNEL

The wind tunnel of LAPAN PUSTEKROKET is an open flow type. The maximum wind speed is 20 m/s. The test
was conducted by hanging the airframe model to a hurdle in front of the wind tunnel at Rocket Technology Center
LAPAN Bogor with a wind speed of 20m/s and a proportional control parameter Kp = 7 from the flight control system.
Based on IMU sensor testing and image processing error values, a rule base can be formulated as follows.
TABLE 2. Rule-base for controlling missile attitude in SACLOS Guidance testing.

Geometrical situation Graphical Distance Input Angular State Output

Target in left-hand of ߰ሶ < 0, missile’s yaw rate must be
Δx > 0 (crosshair in left-hand of the missile)
the missile negative
Target in right-hand ߰ሶ < 0, missile’s yaw rate must be
Δx < 0 (crosshair in right-hand of the missile)
of the missile positive
Target under the
Δy > 0 (crosshair is under the missile) ߠ > 0, missile’s pitch angle is positive
missile
Target over the
Δy < 0 (crosshair is over the missile) ߠ < 0, missile’s pitch angle is negative
missile
Target in the same
Δy = 0 ߰ ൌ ߠ ൌ Ͳ
position with missile

The change in the x-error value of image processing is the inverse of the change in the value of yaw. If the value
of x decreases, the value of yaw will increase, and if the value of x increases, the value of yaw will decrease. The
change in the value of error y is direct to the change in pitch value. If the Y value decreases, the pitch value decreases
and if the y value increases, the pitch value will increase.
Figure testing airframe models in the wind tunnel are shown in Fig. 11.

FIGURE 11. SACLOS guidance testing in the Pustekroket LAPAN open flow wind tunnel.

The test was carried out in two experiments, first handling error in x-axis variation, then handling error in y-axis
variation. The x-error variation experiment was carried out by rotating the camera lever horizontally, yawing it to
track the infrared LED system. The results of testing the airframe control system model in the wind tunnel varying the
value of x are shown in Fig. 12.
 FIGURE 12. SACLOS guidance testing in the yaw axis only.

Blue lines indicate the value of x-error in pixels. This x-pixels value is exploited as feedback to proportional control
gain that is applied to the airframe autopilot. The initial yaw angle value is 17.2º.
When the crosshair position located to the left-hand side of the missile position, the error value of x is positive,
then the relative azimuth angle of the airframe model is positive, therefore the autopilot commands the missile to
rotates towards in the negative direction of yaw in order to reduce the relative azimuth. Swaying the tripod to the left-
hand side causes the direction of the airframe to move to the left. When the error value of x is shifted towards the
negative (right direction), then the yaw angle of the airframe model moves towards the positive (right direction), so
that the infrared LED light tracking system and the x-axis airframe control system work by the rule base.
Furthermore, the airframe model is tested in a wind tunnel with variations in the value of y. The results of testing
airframe models in wind tunnels at various values of y are shown in Fig. 13.

FIGURE 13. SACLOS guidance testing in pitch axis only.

Blue lines indicate the value of y. The position value of y is used as feedback for the PID control system that is
applied to the airframe model. Variation of the y value is done by sliding the rotate lever towards the tilt on the tripod
mount of the infrared LED tracking system. The initial pitch angle value is 3.89º.
When the value of y is shifted towards the negative (upward direction), then the airframe pitch angle value moves
towards the negative (upward direction). Shifting the tripod up causes the model airframe to move upward. When the
y value is shifted in a positive direction (downward), the airframe pitch angle value moves towards the positive
(downward), so that the infrared LED light tracking system and the y-axis and airframe control system model work
by the rule base.

FIGURE 14. SACLOS guidance testing in pitch and yaw axis at once.
 Response sensitivity in yaw 40 degrees/150 pixels is higher than pitch response 20 degrees/160 pixels, which
means the ATGM can produce larger motion in a directional mode more than the pitch one. This larger motion may
be translated into better turn performance but could also mean that it has a high-tendency to conduct a dutch-roll
maneuver or zig-zagging. In a SACLOS guided flight, the missile is subject to a remotely controlled steering
command, therefore the cycle of track-control-response-observe is time-lagged and the miss distance will be
negatively affected. Next simulations will thoroughly assess this behavior, and find the best method to increase
accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS
From this research, few notes could be taken as conclusions. SACLOS guidance mechanism is tested and validated
in Wind Tunnel. Validation is done by placing the target’s flare into the corresponding quadrant described in Table 2.
From visual and log data, the flight responses obey the rule base, which means the SACLOS algorithm and hardware
are confirmed to be working as designed.
The missile achieved longitudinal and directional stability for a restricted range of pitch and yaw commands.
Motion responses in yaw are higher than pitch ones, this could be a good requisite for producing low miss distance or
worse. Further experiments will be conducted to discover the impact of zig-zag motion to fire accuracy.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work as part of the author’s dissertation research is supported by LAPAN PUSTEKROKET. The high
acknowledgment must be given to its Director, Mr. Sutrisno, and Vices, Mrs. Lilis Mariani and Mr. Heru Supriyatno.

REFERENCES
1. M. H. Al-Fadli, D. Gunawan, R. O. Bura, and L. Nugroho, “Design and implementation anti-tank guided
missile control system using semi automatic command line of sight based on digital image processing,”
Master’s thesis, Universitas Pertahanan, 2019.
2. V. Penev, Information & Security: An International Journal 3, 79–90 (1999).
3. H. Huang, Z. Tong, T. Li, L. Jia, and S. Li, Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2017, (2017).
4. S. R. Mohan, Fundamentals of Guided Missiles (Defence Research & Development Organisation, New
Delhi, 2016).
5. Y. Dong, J. Ai, and J. Liu, Proc. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: J. Aerospace Eng. 233, 5943–
5991 (2019).
6. A. N. Oda, G. A. El-Sheikh, Y. Z. El-Halwagy, and M. Al-Ashry, “Robust CLOS guidance and control part-
1: System modeling and uncertainty evaluation,” in the 14th Int. Conf. Aerosp. Sci. Aviation Technology,
Aerosp. Sci. Aviation Technology 14 (The Military Technical College, Kairo, 2011), pp. 1–21.
7. Z. B. F. Tuz, R. S. T. ul Islam, and S. S. I. Ali, “Integrated CLOS and PN guidance for increased effectiveness
of surface to air missiles,” in the 5th International Workshop on Numerical Modelling in Aerospace Sciences,
INCAS Bull. 9 (National Institute for Aerospace Research “Elie Carafoli”, Bucharest, 2017), pp. 141–156.
8. K. Ćosić, I. Kopriva, T. Kostić, M. Slamić, and M. Volarević, Simulation Practice and Theory 7th ed.pp.
107–123 (1999).
9. T. Min-Jea, C. Han-Lim, L. Hun-Gu, and P. Yonmook, “A three dimensional differential game missile
guidance using neural networks,” in Proc. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit-
2001 (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 2001).
10. G. A. El-Sheikh, A. N. Oda, A. Al-Gelany, and R. Al-Bardeny, “CLOS flight path design and analysis,” in
the 15th Int. Conf. Aerosp. Sci. Aviation Technology, Aerosp. Sci. Aviation Technology 15 (The Military
Technical College, Kairo, 2013), pp. 1–21.
11. M. Al-Jaberi, “The vulnerabity of laser warning systems against guided weapons based on low power lasers,”
Ph.D. thesis, Cranfield University, 2006.
12. L. Nugroho and A. T. Kutay, “Capturability of combined augmented proportional navigation against a pull-
up maneuvering target,” in Proc. 2015 IEEE Int. Conf. Aerosp. Electron. Remote Sensing (Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ, 2016).

View publication stats